It is crucial to understand the weight and gravity of the term “genocide”. It is not a term to be thrown around lightly or used carelessly. The act of genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. It is a heinous crime against humanity and a violation of the most fundamental human rights.
Unfortunately, the term “genocide” has been misused and abused in recent times. The ongoing conflict in certain regions of the world has led to the misapplication of the term, especially in situations where it does not necessarily apply. The mislabeling of such conflicts as “genocides” is not only inaccurate but also disrespectful to the victims of actual genocides.
The Tutsi in Rwanda, the Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge, the Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, and Darfur are just a few examples of the horrific atrocities that have been committed in the name of genocide. These are real genocides with real victims, and to equate them with other conflicts that do not meet the criteria of genocide is to belittle the suffering and pain of those who have endured such atrocities.
It is important to distinguish between acts of violence and genocide, as the latter is a specific and intentional crime. The use of the term “genocide” inappropriately can have serious consequences, including the potential to undermine legitimate efforts to prevent and respond to actual genocides.
Therefore, it is essential to use the term “genocide” with caution and precision. Those who misuse the term, either intentionally or out of ignorance, do a disservice to the victims of real genocides and hinder efforts to prevent such crimes from occurring in the future.
This is good to keep in mind in general although I’m not sure how it’s relevant here. In fact, there are the definitional points from Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide quoted by the order in the body of my post. The point of this ruling by the International Court of Justice is that there is a credible case for genocide here according to the definition of Genocide which Israel explicitly agreed to.
It really is a matter of opinion since International Law isn’t really law… they’re more like guidelines.
There’s no enforcement mechanism. A whole bunch of countries never bothered to sign or ratify it. The US specifically is not a party to the statue that created the International Criminal Court and has plans to attack it and extract people if their citizens ever get caught up in it’s processes.
There’s no doubt that the ICJ has well-known limits in the enforcement of its decision, and countries have ignored ICJ rulings in the past (notably the US, as you mentioned). This to me is not a failing of the idea of international law regarding the prevention of genocide but a failing of nations who would rather exist in a world absent of law since they are able to use violence to inflict their will on others. The problem as I see it with this line of thinking is that abandoning the pretense of international law rather than attempting to bolster it as an international community makes all people in the world vulnerable. The status of nations who violate ICJ orders do not exist in a permanent state of their relative power and could suffer the consequences of a lack of international law when situations change and once-invulnerable bodies become vulnerable. I believe in the basis of the legal prevention of genocide by the international community.
This being so, I believe that there are other consequences for nations found plausibly guilty of heinous crimes in an official international court of law pertaining to laws partially written by the state of Israel itself. Israel depends a great deal on its international reputation. A reading of its history of strange bedfellows reveals this desperation. Being plausibly guilty of genocide is not good for Israel’s relationships or economy. If Israel is concerned about outside threats, scuttling itself in the name of persecuting Palestinians is not a reasonable path. Only the far-right sensibility that Palestinians are inherently unworthy of sharing a country with European colonists keeps Israel from ending apartheid and granting Palestinians full rights as citizens of a unified state.
That’s talent, writing a wall of text extolling the importance of accurately labeling genocide which simultaneously minimizes a genocide. This is beehaw so I’m going to keep my mouth shut and hope Hanlon’s razor explains your comment.
The government owns a ton of land used for national parks, grazing, and fish / wildlife conservation. But the biggest benefactors of this will probably be Washington D.C. which has about as many citizens as Alaska.
The not so uplifting part is that most of their parents are either dead or were not at the hospital, and I really hope some of those babies would be able to reunite with their parents even though I doubt it.
If Argentina votes in the anarcho-capitalist guy who gets policy advice from his dogs (technically one dog that’s been cloned several times) then this will really take the cake for darkest timeline.
Or we could provide therapy to our citizens at an early age to help build them into stronger people. But ya know helping people is probably to much to ask for
And they are also eating them, but specify these urchins specifically have less roe and other edible parts, so they are basically more trouble than they’re worth to eat
Sea urchins as a food source was addressed in the article:
Red urchins are favored over the purple urchins because they contain more edible uni or roe inside, but commercial divers say the amount has shrunk with less kelp.
Chefs have started serving purple urchins to build a market.
apnews.com
Top